"All these Mann supporters and not a single amicus brief submitted to the court for Mann."

Why would the court need an amicus curiae or amicus brief? Is libel law really so difficult for a court to sort out these days? Maybe you could give an example of what such an amicus brief would contain rather than handwaving as if it's the lynchpin of Mann's case?

Never said it was a lynchpin of the case. I just find it noteworthy that not a single institution or person filed one.

Perhaps an entity that was involved in "exonerating" Mann from one of those nine investigations, could have submitted to the court details about his exoneration and that Steyn must have known these to be true?

Mann truly is an island and all the Bowers of the world left him alone.

As I stated years ago, Mann will lose and this will confirm him to be a liar and a fraud.

Anonymous 1 says:"Perhaps an entity that was involved in "exonerating" Mann from one of those nine investigations, could have submitted to the court details about his exoneration and that Steyn must have known these to be true?"

Those parties that exonerated Mann would be directly related to the case. They would thus not provide an amicus brief, but direct evidence. Two different things, but what the heck, anonymous 1 is just trying to be a troll anyway.

I'm not quite sure you understand how these things work. First of all this case has not gone to court yet, this is all legal wrangling over dismissal. Second, the defense can do discovery to demand all the information they want before the case goes before a judge, and then when it goes before a judge, they can call witness to testify and then demand the production of whatever evidence the deem fit to their case. Are you following me here? There is no need for anybody to produce Amicus Curiae (look it up) in Michael Mann's defense, since almost all of the science is in the public domain. They've been bragging all along about how discovery is going to dredge up some kind of shocking conspiracy or dramatic evidence supporting their case, and they will have several opportunities before and after the case goes to trial or to the judge, but thus far they appear to be more concerned with dismissal of related issues.

Disclaimer : I have been sued in the past, so I have a bit of insight into some of these things.

Again, I reiterate, there is no need for anyone to file a brief as Amicus Curiae since Michael Mann is quite capable of defending himself and all his science is in the public domain. Can you address the problem where you seem to be either demanding Amicus Curiae to come forward or else suggesting that Micheal Mann should solicit such support, when clearly it's not necessary? Can you explain why the defendants have not embraced going forward with a trial, discovery and legitimate defense of their arguments? That seems a little more difficult to justify, since they are both on record as saying they look forward to the prospect.

I understand Dr. Mann filed a libel suit? In this case he´s not the defendant. Evidently the party being sued will try to argue the case for dismisal, and the ACLU seems to have weighed in, asking for the case to be dismissed.

I suspect Dr. Mann isn´t getting any amicus curiae filings because parties which could have done so don´t want to be seen as limiting freedom of expression. Once the ACLU weighs in, the political coloration changes. To be honest, I read the ACLU filing and decided they were right.

On the other hand it seems Mr Steyn does have terrible taste. I don´t like his politics. This is a really difficult issue, sometimes we have to defend the right for people to use "unfriendly language" when they refer to us.

You don't understand shit. You're a troll, an innumerate troll as well.

In this case he´s not the defendant.

No shit. You're a genius. Which explains why he does not need the defense of Amicus Curiae. Why begs the question of why an anonymous interested party is mentioning its absence here, multiple time, over and over. One also wonders why o'anonymous one does not file an Amicus curiae in support of the defendents as well.

Thomas Lee, why would you insult me and call me a troll? I'm just trying to have a dialogue with intelligent persons about subjects I like to discuss.

For example, I spent about 4 hours reviewing an interesting topic mentioned by our friend BBD: the Eocene high temperature period around 50 mm years ago. He gave me a paper written by a Trentberth group, and I didn't like some of its comments. This made me study the topic in more detail. Which means I learned something. I still think Trenberth was wrong in that particular area, but that's understandable because Eocene geology isn't his strength.

So you see, I do use these exchanges to learn, and it also gives me ideas to write about. And I'm very diversified. But what I really like to do is discuss government lies and human rights abuses. A topic I know doesn't get traction with the climate war folk.

innumerate trollWhere exactly does mathematics or arithmetic come into play?

No shit. You're a genius. Which explains why he does not need the defense of Amicus Curiae. Why begs the question of why an anonymous interested party is mentioning its absence here, multiple time, over and over.

Begs the question does not mean raises the question.

The commenter you attack may or may not be innumerate. There is nothing in Fernando's comment to suggest he is. But you sir, are certainly illiterate.

"Can you address the problem where you seem to be either demanding Amicus Curiae to come forward or else suggesting that Micheal Mann should solicit such support, when clearly it's not necessary?"

Since your premise is wrong, as usual...I demand nothing. I just found it noteworthy that no one did make the attempt to file an Amicus brief to the court on Mann's side. No one has to, but it is evident that no one wanted to.

"Can you explain why the defendants have not embraced going forward with a trial, discovery and legitimate defense of their arguments? "

That statement is inaccurate, as most things you type. Mark Steyn has been requesting a speedy trial and it is Mann who drags his feet. Your statement does apply to CEI and National Review.

And Thomas "the hater of military" Lee Elifritz, Mann is a defendant, because Mann filed a countersuit. I wish you were have as clever as you think you are.

I'm not a hater of the military, I'm simply against an incompetent military and the glorification of an incompetent military competently executing unnecessary wars of no consequence. I'm all for action against NAZI's and fascists at home and abroad.

Again, if the defendants are so confident of the outcome of discovery, trial and defense, then why would they be appealing for dismissal and filing countersuits? Inquiring minds want to know because their statements of enthusiasm for discovery and defense are on record.

Science, mathematics and evidence comes into play because Michael Mann was accused of scientific fraud, in print, by the defendants.

But you sir, are certainly illiterate.

I'm literate enough to have endured enough of Fernandino's and O'anonymous one's ramblings to discern that they are devoid of scientific, mathematical and technical content or significance.

Fernando, according to CEI lawyer Andrew Grossman of Baker & Hostetler the ACLU involvement began early on with previous amicus briefs, so it looks like the court didn't accept their arguments when two superior court judges rejected the anti-SLAPP motions, don't you think?

"That statement is inaccurate, as most things you type. Mark Steyn has been requesting a speedy trial and it is Mann who drags his feet."

Oh right, so there just haven't been any anti-SLAPP attempts which dragged the whole thing out. And now Steyn wants to speed things up you're surprised that Mann's lawyers decide to not dance to Steyn's tune.

"Again, if the defendants are so confident of the outcome of discovery, trial and defense, then why would they be appealing for dismissal and filing countersuits."

Because of the cost you dolt. You need to go have a drink with Captain Obvious, he could really help you out.

"Oh right, so there just haven't been any anti-SLAPP attempts which dragged the whole thing out."

Anti-Slapp is supposed to be a quick process and dismiss frivolous cases so as to not COST the defendants a lot of money for BS, such as Mann's. It is not Steyn's fault that courts have showed incompetence in the handling of the case. If you were an honest person you would understand all of that, but you are not so you won't.

Bowers why don't you combine your brain with Thomas's and build an idiot?

Sure Thomas so I can be stalked by a military hating left wing lunatic such as you?

According to Thomas, if you are sued for libel and you think the case is frivolous you should not exercise your options to have the case dismissed. No you should spent all the money you can get your hands on, drag it out with discovery and trial so you can make lawyers rich. That is about the dumbest thing Thomas has ever argued for and the competition for that was deep.

Let's step into bizarre world and say Mann wins, does that mean Judith Curry gets to sue Mann for libel for calling her a fraud?

Sure Thomas so I can be stalked by a military hating left wing lunatic such as you?

I already explained to you that I don't hate the military and militarized police forces, I just consider them to be paid corporate and government thugs and mercenaries. It wouldn't be so bad if they were competent and had ethics that they adhered to, but apparently defending the United States constitution isn't one of them.

... if you are sued for libel and you think the case is frivolous you should not exercise your options to have the case dismissed.

No, I just find it amusing and questionable that they brag about discovery, trial and evidence, in print, and THEN move to have the case dismissed and bring about a countersuit. You need to work on your reading comprehension.

And of course, also highly amusing but certainly not questionable is your willingness to engage in anonymous libel and slander, but then claim fear of imaginary enemies when challenged to make verifiable signed statements in print. Highly courageous, that.

"No, I just find it amusing and questionable that they brag about discovery, trial and evidence, in print, and THEN move to have the case dismissed and bring about a countersuit. You need to work on your reading comprehension."

I knew I should have reviewed the timeline with a simpleton such as you. They moved to have the case dismissed first and THEN Steyn is now requesting trial. I am not the one that needs to work on reading comprehension.

No fear of imaginary enemies you warmers as so nutty you'll probably jump the gate and run into the White House or something...

Oh and what I say about Mann is not libel in the USA. First it's true what I say, second he is a public figure and needs to grow some balls or a thicker skin.

Somebody has to defend your right to be a NAZI and to destroy the environment and post anonymous crap on blogs, since the US military and our militarized police forces are not doing a very good job of it.

Thomas Lee, why cast that nazi insult? My analysis shows the both left and right extremes tend to be repressive and like to silence freedom of expression. Furthermore, it seems commumnist regimes eventually become hybrids and take on fascist attributes.

I suspect the Hong Kong demonstrators are driven by more than just democracy, they is probably an underlying sense of injustice as they see the Chinese regime create a society with huge inequalities in which the working class has very few means to express their discontent. This, of course, is "communism" with a fascist face. Which seems to be the end point for all extreme leftist systems.

Why do I mention this? Because it´s important to defend free expression and the right to question government "information". And if anybody here thinks governments don´t lie please find me a photograph of an Iraqi WMD.

Fernando, China's state capitalist, as is North Korea, and as were the USSR under Stalin and the East India Company. Keep up, we're not in the 1950s anymore. BTW, you don't actually find many socialists, especially democratic socialists, who have any admiration for such regimes. George Orwell, for instance, who was not averse to comparing Stalin's regime to a fascist state.

"An internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response. "

For example, I spent about 4 hours reviewing an interesting topic mentioned by our friend BBD: the Eocene high temperature period around 50 mm years ago. He gave me a paper written by a Trentberth group, and I didn't like some of its comments. This made me study the topic in more detail. Which means I learned something. I still think Trenberth was wrong in that particular area, but that's understandable because Eocene geology isn't his strength.

The paper was by Hansen & Sato, not Trenberth or his "group" (Trenberth frequently publishes with John Fasullo).

Your singularly weak grasp of paleoclimate does not put you in a position to dismiss published research just because it offends your denial of the efficacy of CO2 as a climate forcing.

In order to understand why the Eocene hothouse eventually became the Pio-Pleistocene icehouse we need to look at forcing changes on geological timescales during the Cenozoic.

I repeatedly asked you what where the major forcing changes over the last ~50Ma and you repeatedly refused to answer.

"Bowers why don't you combine your brain with Thomas's and build an idiot?"

We can't, you and Anonytroll hogged the manual, but I'm sure we'd love to be able to write classic stupid like, "the great thing about climate is that you can make pronouncements about the distant past or the more than a lifetime future - and not be accountable for either because no direct measurements exist!"

Average yearly atmospheric carbon dioxide content will be higher in 2015 than it was (or will be) in 2014. Carbon dioxide is a non-condensing (on this planet) greenhouse gas. Antarctic ice cores yield reliable proxy information on past atmospheric carbon dioxide content from trapped air bubbles, as well as reliable isotopic nuclear proxy records, however they may be interpreted. Are you with me so far? lol. You figure it out.

Your response thus far? We can't possibly know anything about the past or use that to predict the future and something about UFOs.

Average yearly atmospheric carbon dioxide content will be higher in 2015 than it was (or will be) in 2014.Carbon dioxide is a non-condensing (on this planet) greenhouse gas. Antarctic ice cores yield reliable proxy information on past atmospheric carbon dioxide content from trapped air bubbles, as well as reliable isotopic nuclear proxy records, however they may be interpreted.

Yep, all good.

Where many here run off the rails is claiming extremes and making up disaster as a result.

Yes, we have many instances in the past where an industrial society and civilization comprised of seven to ten billion nutty, needy, insanely stupid, religious human nutjobs with guns and automobiles have spiked the carbon dioxide while simultaneously destroying the buffering capacities of the forests.

Rabett Run

Subscribe Rabett Run

The Bunny Trail By Email

Contributors

Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett, a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny who finally handed in the keys and retired from his wanna be research university. The students continue to be naive but great people and the administrators continue to vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional without Eli's help. Eli notices from recent political developments that this behavior is not limited to administrators. His colleagues retain their curious inability to see the holes that they dig for themselves. Prof. Rabett is thankful that they, or at least some of them occasionally heeded his pointing out the implications of the various enthusiasms that rattle around the department and school. Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts.